Internet forum censorship

[Tefal]

Never understood libel laws to be honest, if someone says something that is false about you why not just sue them for the damage caused? And not the fact they have said something false about you..

that's what libel laws are the hard part is the damaged caused part.



Ie famous car reviewer writes that there are major problems with a car (all fake) car manufacturer sues for libel.


how many car sales did they lose and how much are they owed?

I also find it incredibly stupid that websites are responsible for what their users post, it's complete ****

shock as free forum hosts really don't care enough to get involved with even the most minor legal costs on your behalf.

 

[platypus]

Fora is the correct plural of 'forum'...just about the only interesting thing in the OP's post!

It's just stockhausen trying to be flashy with his language to lend some credence to another boring Tory bashing thread without source.

'Forums' is just as acceptable, indeed given the target audience (largely English speakers) 'forums' is more acceptable than fora due to its being a latin declination, whereas 'forum' is a modern English word, therefore 'forums' is the more acceptable plural.

Other than a Latin convention, I can't think of any situation where fora would be deemed more appropriate.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

I prefer Forai as a plural!

 

[RomanNose]

that's what libel laws are the hard part is the damaged caused part.



Ie famous car reviewer writes that there are major problems with a car (all fake) car manufacturer sues for libel.


how many car sales did they lose and how much are they owed?





shock as free forum hosts really don't care enough to get involved with even the most minor legal costs on your behalf.

Don't libel laws currently mean that someone could theoretically be sued for a false statement even though it did not cause any damage?

 

[Pestilence]

Can we get a facepalm smiley, or a derisory shaking head one?

lolhausen.

 

[RDM]

As a correction to the original post you should substitute "government" for "Tories" as it is a government contract and not a party contract. You could (incorrectly) say Tory Government instead if you really wanted to get a party political point across. However it would be somewhat foolish due to it being a Coalition Government and I believe the contract was originally agreed under the previous government (2005 I believe).

That aside I do often wonder why some people think that just because you use the internet you should be immune to the usual laws regarding libel.

 

[joxang]

<- that one is good.

 

[godinman]

I thought this was to do with his spam thread being closed the other day.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Grauniad too.

Being fair that's quite a common way to indicate the newspaper given the frequency of spelling errors in it in the past.

Critical? Really?

I can't think of one Internet Forum that is critical, let alone these two I have never heard of...

I read it as the forums were critical of something rather than being integral to anything, different meanings of critical but maybe you had already thought that and decided to pick up the other meaning anyway.

 

[LordSplodge]

Interesting how? Some people seem to have been making unsubstantiated claims against Atos who have, quite rightly asked their hosts for the sites to be shut down.

Interesting as in how they have gone after all websites that are discussing Atos in a negative way not just the libellous ones. Whilst there are plenty of militant disabled people venting there are also people with genuine concerns an grievances.

There was a similar case where Tesco shut a woman's blog down because she reported what had happened to her in a store. It wasn't slander or libel but just a report of what happened and how it made her feel. Tesco got it shut down because they have the legal muscle to do so.

That is my concern. Is this behaviour to stop libel or stop ALL negative feedback towards a company. I fear we may be seeing a move towards the later.

 

[stockhausen]

As a correction to the original post you should substitute "government" for "Tories" ...

You are absolutely right, I'll change it in line with your comments

Incidentally, there is an interesting commentary based on someone's experience of the DWP assessment process HERE.

 

[Basher]

You are absolutely right, I'll change it in line with your comments

Incidentally, there is an interesting commentary based on someone's experience of the DWP assessment process HERE.

Interesting that, of all the replies, that is the one you chose to respond to.

 

[Vampyre]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/forum#DWS-m-en_gb-msdict-00002–043217

'Forums' is just as acceptable, indeed given the target audience (largely English speakers) 'forums' is more acceptable than fora due to its being a latin declination, whereas 'forum' is a modern English word, therefore 'forums' is the more acceptable plural.

Other than a Latin convention, I can't think of any situation where fora would be deemed more appropriate.

Not going to argue with the might of the OED! Although I would imagine this is a relatively recent change as a forum (as a venue for discussion) is so called because of the fora in ancient Roman cities. According to the OED website the plurals of datum (data) and bacterium (bacteria) still follow the Latin rules, but the plural of stadium can be either stadiums or stadia...should just be one rule for all...bit like benefit scroungers really

 

[stockhausen]

Interesting that, of all the replies, that is the one you chose to respond to.

Jealous (as well as wrong) are you? If you actually had anything of value to contribute I might even respond to your tedious posts

 

[sigma]

Nice post, would read again, trollhausen.

 

[godinman]

Interesting that, of all the replies, that is the one you chose to respond to.

If he replied to all of the people saying he's wrong, he'd never have time to write his next spammy thread.

 

[Basher]

Jealous (as well as wrong) are you? If you actually had anything of value to contribute I might even respond to your tedious posts

Jealous? Of what? You haven't substantiated any of your points and there are completely justifiable reasons for closing the sites down.

I heard this story once about a pot, involved a kettle as well, can't remember the colour...

 

[Haggisman]

Interesting as in how they have gone after all websites that are discussing Atos in a negative way not just the libellous ones. Whilst there are plenty of militant disabled people venting there are also people with genuine concerns an grievances.

There was a similar case where Tesco shut a woman's blog down because she reported what had happened to her in a store. It wasn't slander or libel but just a report of what happened and how it made her feel. Tesco got it shut down because they have the legal muscle to do so.

That is my concern. Is this behaviour to stop libel or stop ALL negative feedback towards a company. I fear we may be seeing a move towards the later.

In a way however, this behaviour is far more damning of the company than anything a member of those forums may have written.

Anyone with half a brain knows that anything written by an anonymous user on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt; however a company using/abusing it's legal might to silence people raising grievances against it (however unfounded they may be) certainly raises questions as to what they are so desperate to cover up.

I've personally never heard of Atos up until this point, but this move has already made me somewhat skeptical of them.

 

[LordSplodge]

In a way however, this behaviour is far more damning of the company than anything a member of those forums may have written.

Anyone with half a brain knows that anything written by an anonymous user on the internet should be taken with a pinch of salt; however a company using/abusing it's legal might to silence people raising grievances against it (however unfounded they may be) certainly raises questions as to what they are so desperate to cover up.

I've personally never heard of Atos up until this point, but this move has already made me somewhat skeptical of them.

Agreed with a caveat.

If somebody commits libel then a company has the right to take legal action. People should accept that sometimes words have consequences.

However, my issue is with what you have outlined above and using the law to go after sites that are negative or critical of organisations. They can do this because most people do not have the legal knowledge or money to access legal experts to fight their case. Thus it becomes an easy way of shutting down a webpage/site - just like the woman posting her encounter with Tesco. It wasn't libellous.

If this continues it threatens freedom of speech online as hosting companies / ISPs and so on will not be willing to host potentially inflammatory content and will simply shut it down at the drop of a hat - despite the fact the words may be perfectly legal.

This (and it is my opinion) is another front on the cold war for control of the Internet. Governments on one side, corporations on the other and we, the people, stuck in the middle.

 

[memyselfandi]

The bigger scandal is that Atos removed the fish from their logo

To right, bring back Billy!